Would it be safe to deduce that the decision to counter-intuitively add more of what people dislike is due to executive remuneration being tied to share performance i.e. they don't give a shit if the whole things tanks as long as they vest and get out while they're seemingly profitable?

I say this under the assumption, perhaps naively, that the people in charge are aware that the decision, long-term, is not a very good one and they're playing strategically for their own ends (rather than simply being pants-on-head stupid).